I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Probably because it does...?

Most Orthodox appear to teach otherwise.

Do you mean most Orthodox on the internet...? I don't think most people attending your local parish care either way, though I could be wrong.

Essentially, after you have yourself received Holy Communion, you can then "adore the Eucharist" when the priest puts the chalice back on the altar and censes it saying, "Be exalted above the Heavens, O God...."

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Probably because it does...?

Most Orthodox appear to teach otherwise.

Do you mean most Orthodox on the internet...? I don't think most people attending your local parish care either way, though I could be wrong.

No, not just on the internet. I have had conversations with parishioners in local Orthodox churches (the local Coptic church comes to mind the most in this case) where the people I converse with have indicated agreement in not recognizing Romanist ordinances as legitimate.

I wouldn't say that the issue has much to do with the so-called "Old Calendarist schism." But I am interested to hear your argument.

Well you probably know more about this than I, Father. It is just my simple understanding that one of the things that Old Calendarists complain about mainstream EOs is that some of us seem to accept, say, RC sacraments as valid and efficacious. But of course that wasn't the original reason for the schism. Anyway, this is not just about Old Calendarists vs. mainstream EOs. I recall reading that metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk was mocked as heretic by his own Russian faithful due to his irenic stand to heterodox. I believe that dogmatising our stance on heterodox sacraments can help to diminish these kind of disputes. That's why I'm all for it.

It cannot be dogmatized because every heretical, schismatic or even paracongregationalist group is different, and even change their own positions over time. It is pastoral. Our position on doctrine alone can be dogmatic. That is why, from the beginning, going back to Sts. Stephen and Cyprian. Since they we have argued and fluxuated back and forth in different time periods in different regions on the subject. Again, this is because, until it comes to receiving a whole group back into Orthodoxy (such as the Donatists), then, in that particular circumstance and time dogmas are defined and mutually adhered to. But as time goes on, a different approach with a different group in different times. You can't change something that is not dogmatic into a dogmatic issue.

Interesting point about each heretical, schismatic, and paracongregationalist group being different. I am reminded of St. Basil's canonical letter that concerns the baptism of heretics, in which St. Basil makes distinctions between different groups and how these distinctions help determine how the person is to be received into the Church.

Saint Basil was talking about economy, though. What he wrote was not an indication of differences in the level of recognition of the efficacy of those ordinances, only differences in the level of recognition of their form.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Probably because it does...?

Most Orthodox appear to teach otherwise.

Do you mean most Orthodox on the internet...? I don't think most people attending your local parish care either way, though I could be wrong.

No, not just on the internet. I have had conversations with parishioners in local Orthodox churches (the local Coptic church comes to mind the most in this case) where the people I converse with have indicated agreement in not recognizing Romanist ordinances as legitimate.

Most Orthodox you have encountered does not equal "most Orthodox" in general. Conciliar/synodal/episcopal statements are what really matters, not opinions of parishioners. You, for that matter, have, IIRC, some interesting opinions on premarital sex and homosexual acts. So let's image you converted to OOxy. And let's imagine that I, by chance, talked with you and some other OOs who happened to have that kind of opinions. Am I entitled to say that most OOs appear to teach that premarital sex and homosexual acts are OK?

Most Orthodox you have encountered does not equal "most Orthodox" in general.

With a combination of sentiments that I have seen on the internet with quite an international selection, sentiments expressed in international Orthodox news stories, and sentiments I have experienced in local churches of various traditions, I think it is quite safe to say that overall it is the majority opinion of Orthodox that Rome does not have efficacious Sacraments.

Conciliar/synodal/episcopal statements are what really matters, not opinions of parishioners.

The laity have a role in preserving the authentic orthodox faith sometimes even in contrast to episcopal and synodical statements which are seeking to pervert that faith (Florence being one of the most famous examples). In light of that, your statement sounds quite clericalist.

You, for that matter, have, IIRC, some interesting opinions on premarital sex and homosexual acts. So let's image you converted to OOxy. And let's imagine that I, by chance, talked with you and some other OOs who happened to have that kind of opinions. Am I entitled to say that most OOs appear to teach that premarital sex and homosexual acts are OK?

It's not a decent comparison because it's simply not true that most OO teach that homosexual acts are sometimes acceptable.

The laity have a role in preserving the authentic orthodox faith sometimes even in contrast to episcopal and synodical statements which are seeking to pervert that faith (Florence being one of the most famous examples).

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

For an historical overview of this please see these two messages by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

For an historical overview of this please see these two messages by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

For an historical overview of this please see these two messages by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

If you cannot access these, I would be happy to supply copies directly by e-mail.

Forbidden label replaced with something more acceptable... -PtA

I find this very confusing. The Russian Church can't have it both ways. If RCC have grace filled sacraments then so does the UOC-KP. They are only schismatics while the RCC is schismatic and holds heretical beliefs. Metropolitan Hilarion just came out a little while ago and said “It is impossible to speak of ‘the recognition of the sacraments’ administered by schismatics”. Also I don't see how a Russian council or one in Constantinople can go against the teachings of Fathers like St Cyprian 1200 years after he taught.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

For an historical overview of this please see these two messages by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

If you cannot access these, I would be happy to supply copies directly by e-mail.

Forbidden label replaced with something more acceptable... -PtA

I find this very confusing. The Russian Church can't have it both ways. If RCC have grace filled sacraments then so does the UOC-KP. They are only schismatics while the RCC is schismatic and holds heretical beliefs. Metropolitan Hilarion just came out a little while ago and said “It is impossible to speak of ‘the recognition of the sacraments’ administered by schismatics”. Also I don't see how a Russian council or one in Constantinople can go against the teachings of Fathers like St Cyprian 1200 years after he taught.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

You'll get a multitude of opinions but the only one I would take seriously, no matter how well intentioned, is my priests.

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

To put this in a little bit of perspective, Catholics entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or a Monstrance in Exposition, ought to make the same discernment.

It is no small or easy thing to stand in the presence of the Living God. So for those outside trying to discern, you are not alone.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

Thank you for that, Fr. Ambrose!

This is as how I was taught and it makes sense in terms of the manner in which former American Greek Catholics were received into Orthodoxy first as the followers of St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre by St. Tikhon and later, the followers of +Bishop Orestes, by Archbishop, later Patriarch Athenagoras on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

What would you do?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

What would you do?

I would honor the Real Presence. However...if I stumbled into the like of one of the 'clown masses' with puppets, I honestly don't know, that would present a problem. But, perhaps that would likewise present some of you Catholics with the same problem, would it not?

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

What would you do?

I would honor the Real Presence. However...if I stumbled into the like of one of the 'clown masses' with puppets, I honestly don't know, that would present a problem. But, perhaps that would likewise present some of you Catholics with the same problem, would it not?

A. Abuses such as clown masses are so extremely rare, that the vast majority of Catholics in the world will never experience such.B. I would walk out and report it to the Bishop immediately. If this didn't resolve the matter I would report it to the Vatican, over and over and over again, until it was resolved.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

What would you do?

I would honor the Real Presence. However...if I stumbled into the like of one of the 'clown masses' with puppets, I honestly don't know, that would present a problem. But, perhaps that would likewise present some of you Catholics with the same problem, would it not?

I was in a liturgy in upstate NY in Bishop Hubbard's diocese where the celebrant took a pitcher of water, slopped a bit of wine into it and recited some sort of consecratory text.

I was there with a Catholic priest. We looked at one another and through communion remained in our pew, allowing that given the violence of our thoughts at the moment, we were not worthy to receive in any event.

That is once in my lifetime that I've been in a liturgy were I would emphatically and certainly refuse communion, so I can say nothing about any other invalidating liturgical abuse from experience.

Not all "abuses" invalidate the sacrament of eucharist...thankfully.

And I am in much greater danger every day of being quite certainly unworthy.

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

To put this in a little bit of perspective, Catholics entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or a Monstrance in Exposition, ought to make the same discernment.

It is no small or easy thing to stand in the presence of the Living God. So for those outside trying to discern, you are not alone.

Thank you for the work you are doing in this thread, Father Ambrose.

As a footnote please let me add my own belief, the teaching which I received from my spiritual father in Serbia, may his memory be eternal. It differs entirely from the Russian.

Because of my Serbian background I in fact do not agree with the Russian position, but it would be dishonest of us not to admit that it is the historical attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox assessment of Catholic and Pre-Chalcedonian sacraments is notuniform.

Once when the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb was visiting the holy monastery of Zica, Serbia, together with a small party of bishops and priests he shared lunch with us in the monastery's guest refectory.---I suppose it would help to put you in the picture if I relate something of Fr Dositej's place in the Serbian Church.

My spiritual father (and the person who tonsured me) was Fr Archimandrite Dositej of the holy monastery of Zica. He was tonsured and ordained by Saint Nikolai Velimirovic of Zicaand was his disciple. He was a spiritual friend of Saint Justin Popovic and in the esteem of the Serbian faithful second only to him as one of Serbia's spiritual fathers. In a country which has dozens of excellent monasteries and many many excellent spiritual fathers, this means quite a lot. He was the spiritual father of Zica monastery with 27 monastics and he was the confessor of many other monks and nuns from other monasteries and he had numerous spiritual children throughout Serbia. This helps to make it clear why I trust and holdto the tradition which I received from him.---

Back to the anecdote....... At the meal Archbishop Kuharic asked Fr Dositej what he saw as the difference between Catholic and Orthodox sacraments.

Fr Dositej took two identical glasses and he filled one with water. He pointed to that one and said: "This glass is the sacraments (tainstva) of the Orthodox."

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

What would you do?

Chesterton and Belloc were once visiting an Anglican church and one them genuflected to the tabernacle.

The other remonstrated: You shouldn't do that. There's nothing there.

The one who had genuflected replied: Well, if He is there, He's there as a prisoner!"

The Lord is everywhere present and filling all things. The question is if He is there in the higher Mysteries, that is, sacramentally. If He is not, then we can still bow to the Lord who is everywhere present and filling all things. We should not be heretics and say that He is not there in any sense, as our Faith teaches us He is everywhere, even if not modally in the Mystery. Neither you nor I can say "He is not there." Even if we can say with certainty in certain cases that His Body is not there, we cannot say that He is not there is some sense, otherwise we are liars when we say the "O Heavenly King" and other prayers which state the contrary.

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

Forbidden label replaced with something more acceptable... -PtA

As I have mentioned on another thread, I do not believe Irish Hermit’s claim that the historical position of the Russian Orthodox Church is that Roman Catholic and Non-Chalcedonian sacraments are “authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves”. As Irish Hermit has admitted elsewhere, this claim about the historical position of the Russian Orthodox Church comes solely from Fr. Alexander Lebedeff and is not based on historical documents of the Russian Orthodox Church. When Fr. Alexander has made this claim, the documents he has quoted to support his claim do not at all suggest that Roman Catholics and Non-Chacedonians have grace-filled mysteries. The documents themselves only acknowledge that Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians have *valid* sacramental forms as well as the form of apostolic succession. Fr. Alexander has also demonstrated that the Russian Orthodox Church historically has received Roman Catholics without requiring baptism. However, the recognition that *valid sacramental forms* exist outside of the Orthodox Church is an entirely separate issue from that of sacramental grace. Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky), in his very good article on the use of oikonomia in receiving non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church, explained the historical teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church when he stated that all sacramental forms outside of the Orthodox Church are empty forms and without grace. When a person is received into the Orthodox Church who already had a proper *form* of baptism, that person’s reception into the Orthodox Church will complete and render grace-filled that which was a mere empty form *validly* administered outside of the Church. So, with this view in mind, if a person already had a proper *form* of baptism, chrismation/confirmation, ordination, etc., the forms may not need to be repeated when such a person is received into the Orthodox Church. However, the fact that the *forms* are not repeated does not at all suggest that the previously administered *forms* were grace-filled. The fact that so many confuse the term “valid” with such terms as “salvific”, “grace-filled,” and “authentic” only emphasizes the problem with using oikonomia in accepting converts by any rite other than baptism. This is precisely why ROCOR in 1971, and Fr. George Metallinos in his book “I Confess One Baptism”, recommend all converts to be received only by baptism. As far as I know, receiving all converts by baptism is still the common practice in ROCOR, the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and on Mt. Athos, and I do hope that more will adopt this practice in the future. There perhaps was a time when the use of oikonomia in the reception of converts was understood and could be exercised without resulting in the mass confusion that results from such a practice today. I think that time has passed, and due to the widespread confusion that has resulted from the practice of oikonomia in this context, there is a great need to return to the more strict position of baptizing all converts.

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

Forbidden label replaced with something more acceptable... -PtA

As I have mentioned on another thread, I do not believe Irish Hermit’s claim that the historical position of the Russian Orthodox Church is that Roman Catholic and Non-Chalcedonian sacraments are “authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves”. As Irish Hermit has admitted elsewhere, this claim about the historical position of the Russian Orthodox Church comes solely from Fr. Alexander Lebedeff and is not based on historical documents of the Russian Orthodox Church. When Fr. Alexander has made this claim, the documents he has quoted to support his claim do not at all suggest that Roman Catholics and Non-Chacedonians have grace-filled mysteries. The documents themselves only acknowledge that Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians have *valid* sacramental forms as well as the form of apostolic succession. Fr. Alexander has also demonstrated that the Russian Orthodox Church historically has received Roman Catholics without requiring baptism. However, the recognition that *valid sacramental forms* exist outside of the Orthodox Church is an entirely separate issue from that of sacramental grace. Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky), in his very good article on the use of oikonomia in receiving non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church, explained the historical teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church when he stated that all sacramental forms outside of the Orthodox Church are empty forms and without grace. When a person is received into the Orthodox Church who already had a proper *form* of baptism, that person’s reception into the Orthodox Church will complete and render grace-filled that which was a mere empty form *validly* administered outside of the Church. So, with this view in mind, if a person already had a proper *form* of baptism, chrismation/confirmation, ordination, etc., the forms may not need to be repeated when such a person is received into the Orthodox Church. However, the fact that the *forms* are not repeated does not at all suggest that the previously administered *forms* were grace-filled. The fact that so many confuse the term “valid” with such terms as “salvific”, “grace-filled,” and “authentic” only emphasizes the problem with using oikonomia in accepting converts by any rite other than baptism. This is precisely why ROCOR in 1971, and Fr. George Metallinos in his book “I Confess One Baptism”, recommend all converts to be received only by baptism. As far as I know, receiving all converts by baptism is still the common practice in ROCOR, the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and on Mt. Athos, and I do hope that more will adopt this practice in the future. There perhaps was a time when the use of oikonomia in the reception of converts was understood and could be exercised without resulting in the mass confusion that results from such a practice today. I think that time has passed, and due to the widespread confusion that has resulted from the practice of oikonomia in this context, there is a great need to return to the more strict position of baptizing all converts.

You have not gone back far enough in the relationship between Catholics east and west...and so your heartfelt assertion here does not hold up in the longer view.

I am sorry that you are so deeply convinced and convicted. In these cases the truth is not always liberating, but is too often a yoke, lifted and discarded.

I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church makes no judgment on the validity or lack thereof of the Roman sacraments.

I have never understood what that means. Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

What would you do?

Chesterton and Belloc were once visiting an Anglican church and one them genuflected to the tabernacle.

The other remonstrated: You shouldn't do that. There's nothing there.

The one who had genuflected replied: Well, if He is there, He's there as a prisoner!"

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

For an historical overview of this please see these two messages by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

I understand that the Roman Church has valid sacraments. there is a Catholic Church within short walking distance of my dad's house with eucharistic adoration. can I go and pray with my (Orthodox) prayer books before our Lord there? a friend is suffering liver failure, and I feel that I really need to do this, if it is OK.

Where did you get the idea that the Romanist "Eucharist" has the Real Presence?

Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts. etc.

This teaching has been enshrined in Russian canons since at least the medieval Moscow Councils, in accord with Constantinople 1484. These canons have never been annulled and are still in force.

For an historical overview of this please see these two messages by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

If you cannot access these, I would be happy to supply copies directly by e-mail.

Forbidden label replaced with something more acceptable... -PtA

Would you mind sending them to me, too, please.

M.

Contents of quote box updated to match current text -PtA

Mary, your ISP refuses to deliver them to you.

I find that passing strange!!...phoo

I'll see if I can find them or find out what happened to them...

try personal email removed

Personal email address removed to protect it against bots and other nefarious Web crawlers... If you want Irish Hermit to have your email address, I recommend you send it to him via PM. Thank you. -PtA